Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Herzlos wrote:

Sete wrote:
More future than WHFB as of now.
Getting back on topic, these last few releases seem to have sold pretry well.
Ironjaws was well recwived as fleash eater court.
And Silver tower was a sucess aswell.
Such bad news for a game with no future.

Do you have any evidence for any of that?

Really? You don't read the forums? It was WELL RECIEVED on the forums. Someone somewhere always has to put a negative spin on something AoS or GW.

Herzlos wrote:

Sete wrote:
More future than WHFB as of now.
Getting back on topic, these last few releases seem to have sold pretry well.
Ironjaws was well recwived as fleash eater court.
And Silver tower was a sucess aswell.
Such bad news for a game with no future.

Do you have any evidence for any of that?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Bottle wrote:


Sure, you can believe they are lying through their teeth if it helps with your conspiracy theories!

You have to appreciate that WD has some form of bias to it - everything is the best thing ever! The writers will never mention anything they didn't like about it, so it's not a good source of information (except maybe partial background).

Iron Jaws has got a lot of positive comments on DakkaDakka. It doesn't mean that AoS in itself is doing well as a game but these particular models seem to have been well received.

I've also seen some appreciation for Silver Tower as a game not just as a source of cheap figures.

Of course some people would say that what users say on DakkaDakka is irrelevant in the context of the greater scheme. (Which itself is an interestingly reiterative point.)

 alex2781 wrote:
Wondering people's opinions on GW's next long term move, do they push on with AOS or do they try and go back in time again before the end times etc. Apologies if there is already a thread like this, I had a brief look and couldn't find anything

*I'm not seeing every post so apologies if this is redundant.*
Alex2781, in short, I'm positive GW will stand behind and support AoS in the long term. While a specialist game or RPG or whatever may take players back to the World That Was eventually I really don't see WHFB returning (though BloodBowl will continue it its unique version of WHFB world). I think you should play more with scenarios, whatever models you like (instead of what you are told are "good" units) and never, ever play straight up pitched battle or straight starter box games. No point in rehashing shoulda-coulda-woulda but we have scenarios and they make the play experience even better. If you're looking to connect with the growing AoS community I recommend checking out TGA (tga.community) as its recent opening to the public serves as a fantastic hub to go find more players, sites, suggestions, sample scenarios, hobby blogs, and more. They aim to connect players with resources to go and enjoy our gaming experience.

AoS is getting more releases and this handbook will be a welcome and much-needed resource, though I doubt every tournament or event will organize solely on whatever matched play system looks like, or maybe they will. But it's a good start for those who desire an official system from GW. Fair enough. And if you are not getting the full experience you want on a forum go try TGA, look at multiple forums or if you do FB there are some wonderful (and large!) groups. If you or those in your area want to explore creating your own local scene there are excellent posts by Ben Curry (Bad Dice) on just that. What matters, of course, is that you enjoy your hobby. Despite whatever the Internetz says--good or bad or just ridiculous--none of us know what actually happens inside GW and we probably never will, so don't put too much stock in that. Finally, GW is open to feedback now and if you have a request, praise or complaint or question, email them and let them know. It apparently happens very very little, so we cannot expect GW to mine the various forums for info.

Enjoy and happy gaming!

I think as a concept Age of Sigmar will do better in the long run. I'm a 40k player that wanted to get into WHFB but the entry price is insane. I would have to build gigantic detachments of units unless I played ogres. Fantasy didn't have formations or allied detachments or multiple CADs. Its restricting. The ability to get into a game by literally just buying whatever you think looks cool? That's a much better way to entice people to play. Especially when models are so expensive, not everyone has time or money to buy/build filler units.

And yes that's for people getting into the game, about the actual game itself? Watching battle reports its honestly not much different from 40k even without the 300 pages of rules (funny huh). I mean its lacking a lot of the variety but the game is new and in time that problem will fix itself with more releases. The thing that people are the most upset about is the randomness of the armies, which GW is already fixing with the future point system.

Yea, I'd be pissed if a game I played got discontinued. No gak, we all would be. But to say that AoS has NO future? Please. In fact more people have been interested in getting into the fantasy setting more than ever now than when 8th edition was a thing.

While I concur that is has a future, I have seen absolutely nothing that would convince me that it is more or even as successful as warhammer was. I am actually a solid player of AoS and can tell you from MY experience ( and I readily concede that it is a regional thing) getting a game of AoS is harder than finding a snipe in Estes Park. The game is not well received and I have taken to hunting for opponents here online, when I used to be able to simply walk into any local store with my army and get a game.

 thekingofkings wrote:
While I concur that is has a future, I have seen absolutely nothing that would convince me that it is more or even as successful as warhammer was. I am actually a solid player of AoS and can tell you from MY experience ( and I readily concede that it is a regional thing) getting a game of AoS is harder than finding a snipe in Estes Park. The game is not well received and I have taken to hunting for opponents here online, when I used to be able to simply walk into any local store with my army and get a game.

Yea gutting half their model line didn't help either. I think they need the updated rules right away and to show people that it works (if it works, hopefully). From my experience 40k has always been more popular in stores, and I wonder if Scifi is just more exciting to most people. I mean its hard to compare anything in fantasy/AoS to the goddam Baneblade or Imperial Knights. 40k gets scifi fans, modern combat fans AND ww1-ww2 fans interested.

SCiFi is usually more popular in the US and I usually see it more, too. But 40K has its own problems now. AoS is working through its growing pains but there's also so much changing in the hobby in general over multiple games so, we live in interesting times Still see this as a golden age of miniwargaming though.

Very well said Don Savik.

 Don Savik wrote:
The ability to get into a game by literally just buying whatever you think looks cool? That's a much better way to entice people to play.

Sadly I believe that the Generals Handbook is going throw this statement away and people will be taking the "best" choice instead of taking what is cool or what they want. It can be like 40K and Fantasy Battles all over again.

Davor wrote:
Very well said Don Savik.

 Don Savik wrote:
The ability to get into a game by literally just buying whatever you think looks cool? That's a much better way to entice people to play.

Sadly I believe that the Generals Handbook is going throw this statement away and people will be taking the "best" choice instead of taking what is cool or what they want. It can be like 40K and Fantasy Battles all over again.

Davor, I can understand that concern but I guess that comes to down the people you play, options and trial and error. We've been having a blast playing our Open Match, using a player made comp or just houserules. While we're eager to see Narrative PLay (we kinda do that already) I doubt we will have to be relegated to a situation where the matched play becomes the only and least appealing option. We've got options and networks like TGA to connect us and discuss interests in the game, armies and hobby before we show up and meet for a game.
Anyway, bed time and fading fast but I hope you get the gist of this post.zzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzz

 Bottle wrote:
Sure, you can believe they are lying through their teeth if it helps with your conspiracy theories!

Speaking as someone who's worked on similar internal promotional publications, well...I'm glad some people will still believe everything they read. Means my industry's not going away any time soon.

 Bottle wrote:
We're in agreement here. The people at the top didn't care for the rules and so gave the design studio full say in it. With Jervis leading it up, that's how we get a game with no points and narrative scenarios (as it fills his "director and film" idea of wargaming). There's probably more involvement from the top now considering the rocky start AoS had as a result of the rules + narrative.

Oh, the c-levels absolutely cared about the rules - in so much as they either helped or hindered the sales of miniatures. After all, there's no more restrictions on what can be bought and used, either from differing army lists or from points values. You just buy exactly what you want and feel free to use it in any scenario. The simplicity of the rules and low buy-in were almost certainly handed down from on high as a reaction to the (very real) shortcomings of WHFB as well. The designers may or may not like this stuff, who knows, but they didn't just happen to craft a ruleset that acts as a frictionless sales tunnel for GW's primary product. GW's declining sales volumes were a big factor in how AoS was crafted and pushed.

Not that there's anything inherently wrong with frictionless sales tunnels, mind you. Matching business goals with consumer wants is what companies should always try to do. AoS, tho, was always weighted too heavily and too obviously towards the former, which was made all the worse by GW's arrogant assumption that they could simply dictate the latter with impunity. It's been nice to watch the customers teach them one hell of a lesson regarding that particular Business 101 concept. Hopefully GW's current turn towards apology by way of engagement isn't as insincere and short lived as it has been in the past.

 Lexington wrote:

 Bottle wrote:
Sure, you can believe they are lying through their teeth if it helps with your conspiracy theories!

Speaking as someone who's worked on similar internal promotional publications, well...I'm glad some people will still believe everything they read. Means my industry's not going away any time soon.

I can see our conversation slowly devolving into smarmy belittling comments, and I'd rather not. Sure I understand White Dwarf will have a positive spin on everything but I do not think they outwardly lie about anything as you are suggesting. The bias in White Dwarf is only as real as the anti-GW bias Rick Priestly will bring to interviews and media outlets will spin for clicks.

My main point was to counter everyone citing AoS's design as something handled solely by accountants and marketing when the design choices can just as easily be related to the preferences of the Design Studio (and especially Jervis).

In truth, it's only speculation from either side - but when met with tides of forum users shouting on side only as truth, it only makes me want to voice the other side too.

In the latest White Dwarf.... The saddest thing was seeing that shot of the Total War crew playing Warhammer on a full size table....
It looked interesting. Like they were playing a proper game. They had clearly defined units.
Those shots in White Dwarf made me long to buy a box of troops and paint them up to add to a game of Warhammer, but sadly, those days have gone.

All I see of AoS is a board covered in elite minis in a random mix of all over the board.
From all the pics I see of AoS, I get the impression it's a mass of elite models and all you do is make sure they mix in the middle and roll a load of dice using MtG style combos.
Meh.

So far,

hobojebus wrote:

Remove the models from GW games there's nothing of worth left.

seems to sum up GW for me. And GW are removing half the models themselves.

As has been reported many times, the default scenario is indeed mixing in the middle and rolling a load of dice. Play scenarios instead. The game opens right up.

The complaint about AOS being a board covered in elite minis doesn't make sense to me because that was exactly my experience with WHFB as well. Min/max gameplay has been around as long as there has been an internet.

If anything I see much more diverse armies in AOS than I ever did in WHFB in any edition. WHFB was the same copy/paste armies over and over again. 8th edition was the definition of this to include taking as many wizards as you can to max out on six dicing for the win "tactic".

My inclination is once AOS official points are a thing that that will happen to AOS as well, but for now things are more diverse on any table I've played on in pretty much twenty years.

 Gimgamgoo wrote:

Spoiler:

In the latest White Dwarf.... The saddest thing was seeing that shot of the Total War crew playing Warhammer on a full size table....
It looked interesting. Like they were playing a proper game. They had clearly defined units.
Those shots in White Dwarf made me long to buy a box of troops and paint them up to add to a game of Warhammer, but sadly, those days have gone.

All I see of AoS is a board covered in elite minis in a random mix of all over the board.
From all the pics I see of AoS, I get the impression it's a mass of elite models and all you do is make sure they mix in the middle and roll a load of dice using MtG style combos.
Meh.

So far,

hobojebus wrote:

Remove the models from GW games there's nothing of worth left.

seems to sum up GW for me. And GW are removing half the models themselves.

Seriously, all I got from that post was you miss ranking up and core tax.
Which is fine if that's what you want to see, but not exactly objective criticism of AoS as they don't apply to a number of popular game systems either.

 Gimgamgoo wrote:
In the latest White Dwarf.... The saddest thing was seeing that shot of the Total War crew playing Warhammer on a full size table....
It looked interesting. Like they were playing a proper game. They had clearly defined units.
Those shots in White Dwarf made me long to buy a box of troops and paint them up to add to a game of Warhammer, but sadly, those days have gone.

All I see of AoS is a board covered in elite minis in a random mix of all over the board.
From all the pics I see of AoS, I get the impression it's a mass of elite models and all you do is make sure they mix in the middle and roll a load of dice using MtG style combos.
Meh.

So far,

hobojebus wrote:

Remove the models from GW games there's nothing of worth left.

seems to sum up GW for me. And GW are removing half the models themselves.

If you say so or you can create wedges that can only be wounded on the tip then they can pile in and attack with more force, or curves that can get more than a rank worth of models into combat, hollow squares for bubble wrap or to use as collapsible traps. or you know you can just scrum in the middle... thing is if you have blocked infantry you cant do the formations ive mentioned but you can still scrum all your stuff in the middle, huh? guess AOS does have tactics guess, you just have to use your head a bit.

 Zognob Gorgoff wrote:

 Gimgamgoo wrote:
In the latest White Dwarf.... The saddest thing was seeing that shot of the Total War crew playing Warhammer on a full size table....
It looked interesting. Like they were playing a proper game. They had clearly defined units.
Those shots in White Dwarf made me long to buy a box of troops and paint them up to add to a game of Warhammer, but sadly, those days have gone.

All I see of AoS is a board covered in elite minis in a random mix of all over the board.
From all the pics I see of AoS, I get the impression it's a mass of elite models and all you do is make sure they mix in the middle and roll a load of dice using MtG style combos.
Meh.

So far,

hobojebus wrote:

Remove the models from GW games there's nothing of worth left.

seems to sum up GW for me. And GW are removing half the models themselves.

If you say so or you can create wedges that can only be wounded on the tip then they can pile in and attack with more force, or curves that can get more than a rank worth of models into combat, hollow squares for bubble wrap or to use as collapsible traps. or you know you can just scrum in the middle... thing is if you have blocked infantry you cant do the formations ive mentioned but you can still scrum all your stuff in the middle, huh? guess AOS does have tactics guess, you just have to use your head a bit.

Probably true, I'm not disputing it as I don't have enough experience of the game.
However, GW are not doing themselves any favours. All their photos seem like models set up in an overly massive mix to sell them. That Total War photo set up looked like an actual game that people might be having fun with.
Maybe if GW had photos making AoS look like a game rather than a massive diorama they'd have more chance of winning people back.

It depends on the game.

Any skirmish game allows you to make such formations because you've got freedom of movement of the models.

Historical games feature formations like wedge or square if they are historically accurate.

The difference in a more detailed historical game would be fore example the morale bonus from being in square versus cavalry and the penalty against artillery.

A lot of the AoS battle report pictures by "real players" not GW do show block formations. However GW are selling an exciting dream, not practicality.

I think there's a difference here between photos of a game in progress and photos of models set up to look like they're fighting.
Which to be fair, GW has a lack of the former because that's not really what they're trying to "sell". They want to promote the cinema of the game, rather than the game itself. Which again is pretty common across most games manufacturers. You don't see many official photos from PP, Mantic or whoever that show people with tape measure in hand - they show photos of Commander Sorcha storming the Cygnar fortress, the Infected attacking security forces, etc.

RoperPG wrote:
I think there's a difference here between photos of a game in progress and photos of models set up to look like they're fighting.
Which to be fair, GW has a lack of the former because that's not really what they're trying to "sell". They want to promote the cinema of the game, rather than the game itself. Which again is pretty common across most games manufacturers. You don't see many official photos from PP, Mantic or whoever that show people with tape measure in hand - they show photos of Commander Sorcha storming the Cygnar fortress, the Infected attacking security forces, etc.

It wasn't the people in the shot that made it look 'gamey'. It was the way the table was laid out.

GW's current style of photos is just to cram as many as possible on a board. The overcrowded chaotic mess does not look like it will lend itself to a game. All they have to do is make the units look like part of a game. It doesn't need people with official GW tape measures in hand to have a good photo of a game. They don't have to have game photos like this all the time, but once in a while would make it feel like AoS is a game, not just an advert for minis.

Part of the problem of getting any of my ex-WFB friends to even try AoS (including myself), is the misconception that it's all about pushing your models to the middle and rolling dice. GW's own photos do nothing to dispel that idea - more likely they add to it.

Also, White Dwarf weekly used to have photo's of the editorial team and use them by name in articles. It made it feel personal and the games playable. Now it's become even more corporate advertising than it was. Hopefully some of these obnoxious changes will be reversed under this new (seemingly better) regime at GW,

 Gimgamgoo wrote:
GW's current style of photos is just to cram as many as possible on a board.

It's not really a new style from GW, I can open any old army book or rulebook from the 90's and find pics of huge armies positioned about 4" away from each other. Maybe they were just a bit more varied back then (like, they had battle reports of games to somewhat offset the scenes that are just meant to look like a spectacle

Pushing your models to the middle and rolling dice is a feature of WFB, WarMachine and a lot of other games---unless somebody's defending, running a gunline, etc. and turtling up on one table edge. In those cases it's move the models to the other guy's edge or remain in your own table half and roll dice for ranged attacks.

Google warhammer fantasy battle report and look at the immediately obvious center table fighting that's going on in the majority of the photos.

 Gimgamgoo wrote:
In the latest White Dwarf.... The saddest thing was seeing that shot of the Total War crew playing Warhammer on a full size table....
It looked interesting. Like they were playing a proper game. They had clearly defined units.
Those shots in White Dwarf made me long to buy a box of troops and paint them up to add to a game of Warhammer, but sadly, those days have gone.

All I see of AoS is a board covered in elite minis in a random mix of all over the board.
From all the pics I see of AoS, I get the impression it's a mass of elite models and all you do is make sure they mix in the middle and roll a load of dice using MtG style combos.
Meh.

So far,

hobojebus wrote:

Remove the models from GW games there's nothing of worth left.

seems to sum up GW for me. And GW are removing half the models themselves.

Yeah had thought the same when I skimmed through it in my local game store. Just re-enforces what I feel was a big mistake from GW in completely abandoning WHFB as it really was a missed marketing opportunity; it also looks silly to any prospective customers or people looking in who see the old WHFB ranked up stuff in the videogame and wonder what's happened to it.

 Lt. Donomar StubbornBull wrote:

 Gimgamgoo wrote:
In the latest White Dwarf.... The saddest thing was seeing that shot of the Total War crew playing Warhammer on a full size table....
It looked interesting. Like they were playing a proper game. They had clearly defined units.
Those shots in White Dwarf made me long to buy a box of troops and paint them up to add to a game of Warhammer, but sadly, those days have gone.

All I see of AoS is a board covered in elite minis in a random mix of all over the board.
From all the pics I see of AoS, I get the impression it's a mass of elite models and all you do is make sure they mix in the middle and roll a load of dice using MtG style combos.
Meh.

So far,

hobojebus wrote:

Remove the models from GW games there's nothing of worth left.

seems to sum up GW for me. And GW are removing half the models themselves.

Yeah had thought the same when I skimmed through it in my local game store. Just re-enforces what I feel was a big mistake from GW in completely abandoning WHFB as it really was a missed marketing opportunity; it also looks silly to any prospective customers or people looking in who see the old WHFB ranked up stuff in the videogame and wonder what's happened to it.

ya pretty much. You play total war see ,assive amounts of troops fighting a giant, or a spider. Calvery trying to flank ect. Walk into a GW witha AoS game going on and you see 5 elite choices ( a moving) into the center while two kids throw dice at each other. Everyone wants to be the one of a kind hero to kill everythig, no one wants to be a trooper. When everyone is heroes the game is boring, I actually thought silver tower would replace AoS play a hero get everything.

Plus the game looks sloppy and un attractive, nothing throws off a game more then seeing a ork warboss with a group of ogres running across the world.

 privateer4hire wrote:
Pushing your models to the middle and rolling dice is a feature of WFB, WarMachine and a lot of other games---unless somebody's defending, running a gunline, etc. and turtling up on one table edge. In those cases it's move the models to the other guy's edge or remain in your own table half and roll dice for ranged attacks.

Google warhammer fantasy battle report and look at the immediately obvious center table fighting that's going on in the majority of the photos.

People tend to forget that aspect of WFB a lot these days

Indeed. In fact one of the biggest complaints from 2010-2011 (the first year of 8th ed) was that most games degenerated into smacking bellies in the center of the table waiting for one mega death star to run and lose the game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And as much as I love frostgrave, we often spend some time in the center smacking each other around until we kill enough (in FG you don't flee)

OgreChubbs wrote:

ya pretty much. You play total war see ,assive amounts of troops fighting a giant, or a spider. Calvery trying to flank ect. Walk into a GW witha AoS game going on and you see 5 elite choices ( a moving) into the center while two kids throw dice at each other. Everyone wants to be the one of a kind hero to kill everythig, no one wants to be a trooper. When everyone is heroes the game is boring, I actually thought silver tower would replace AoS play a hero get everything.

Plus the game looks sloppy and un attractive, nothing throws off a game more then seeing a ork warboss with a group of ogres running across the world.

Oh don't you worry, the lord and hero spam is on the way for total war.

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?731943-Asymmetric-warfare-in-multiplayer-battles

True that AoS favors elite skirmishes but large armies of core troops piling into eachother after marching in ranks, surrounding giant monsters to wear them down and making more formations than just blocks such as squares to protect artillery and casters can also be seen at times. To say nothing of the solo heroes, the firing into combat mechanics and use of powerful (and very hard to kill) cavalry to get the enemy's guarded wizard or ranged units in their flanks and rear.

Really i think AoS just lacks routing when it comes to the overall similarities to TW.

Baron Klatz wrote:

True that AoS favors elite skirmishes but large armies of core troops piling into eachother after marching in ranks, surrounding giant monsters to wear them down and making more formations than just blocks such as squares to protect artillery and casters can also be seen at times. To say nothing of the solo heroes, the firing into combat mechanics and use of powerful (and very hard to kill) cavalry to get the enemy's guarded wizard or ranged units in their flanks and rear.

Really i think AoS just lacks routing when it comes to the overall similarities to TW.

I don't know that I'd go so far to say that AoS has a 'firing into combat' mechanic. It just doesn't tell you that you can't, which isn't the same thing. Total War has friendly fire which is affected by unit positioning, unit height, and so forth.

Also, Total War has a points system.

Only army that should fire into combat is skaven.

Actually the faq clarified that indeed you can shoot into combat.

AOS has lots of really excellent Battleplans (i.e. scenarios).

You only end up in a big mob in the middle if you play all melee in scenario-less "kill everything" games. But then isn't that the point.

Even then I myself play with a backfield Dwarf Artillery group and forward ranging skirmish troops. The latter is cheap, and spread out in numbers. Corresponding my opponents have learned to use fast units to flank around my skirmish line to get at my Artillery (and the Cogsmith) - instead of getting bogged down in the middle.